Plot lineweights in viewports don't scale up or down

[michelle_wecke]

Hi people who know more than me.

I need to get some form of resolution to my problem.

I freelance for a guy who assigns line weights to each layer. There is not CTB for it.
When I set up my drawing in paper space I use various scales ... you know, as one tends to do when doing details.
When I print it, every viewport has the same lineweight ... but yeah, I really don't want that. When I print a drawing at 1:10 I want the lines to plot thicker because it then looks like I'm not a first year who knows nothing about lineweights.

I have tried assigning a lined weight to the layer in a viewport but that is such unneeded work! 
Is AutoCAD not able to scale the lineweights automatically?

If not, is there a techy on here who could make that a thing for the next release - AutoCAD 2020 - now with lineweight scaling so that you can save 4 hours of unnecessary work.

[RobDraw]

You're missing something very key here. This issue is easily solved with a simple combination of a couple of settings if all you want is for the lineweights to all change by the same factor. 

[michelle_wecke]

If it's so easy, please do explain step by step. You're getting needlessly aggressive with the other commenter and tagging me in instead of replying to them.

Whatever "norm" your "standard drawing practice" is is clearly not what I was taught at university or any other drawing course I have attended here. Our drawing norm is that a brick wall at 1:100 is say 0.25mm and as you zoom in, that line is also "zoomed in" making it thicker. So a brick at 1:50 -0.5, 1:20 -1.0, 1:5 -5.0. So a bit of flexibility would be very welcomed. Allow scaling to be applied to a line so that those with that drawing standard can have the easy way out just like the plenty other easy way out solutions they have given us. I do not like wasting an additional 2-4 hours adjusting each view port to get the right line weight.

[RobDraw]

I'm sorry. I got lost in the comments and thought we were talking about something else. What you are describing is fundamentally wrong from a drafting point of view. If that brick wall is being represented at different scales on the same sheet, the lines should plot at the same width despite the scale. If what you are describing was common practice it would be easier in any decent drafting program.

[michelle_wecke]

No Rob, it's only wrong according to someone who was taught differently. It doesn't make it "fundamentally wrong", it just makes it a different system that you have not been taught. I have a masters degree in Architecture with over 15 years of architectural drawing experience in 4 firms - including my own. I have multiple diplomas in landscape design with over 10 years draughting landscapes in AutoCAD. I am reasonably convinced (being highly sarcastic here), that I know what I am doing.

The process should be easy, that is what I am arguing.

[michelle_wecke]

I am also quite convinced that I did not ask about whether or not various draughting techniques were correct or "fundamentally wrong" - as you can read in the above thread, I am not the only person who uses this system and would like "the easy way out" to draw the way we like to draw.

Could you please stick to answering the question rather than berating someone on your perceived views on what is the correct and incorrect ways of draughting. If you're not answering the question, you are clogging the thread with needless argument.

[Anonymous]

Same here, im a licenced architect practicing for over 12 years and worked in offices in Portugal, Spain and Cyprus. The problem was always there, and apparently still is, and was discussed between many architect friends i knew. I still dont see an answer after all this years. Discussing what is wrong or write here is ridiculous. 

[pendean]

I only answered your question should anyone else want the answer as well, I am staying out of whatever it is you two/three are getting into here.

[RobDraw]

Okay, so some people don't use lineweights according well established drafting standards, I get that. I've seen some "different" ways of presenting drawings from multiple sources.  What gets me is why are you using a program that is designed to be used with those standards and also in way that follows those standards? It would seem to me that you would have developed a work flow that does what you want. Your looking for an easy button to alter a workflow that was designed for something other than you want. AutoCAD is capable of what you want but the workflow needs to be designed to follow your standards. Your drawing without any regard for your desired lineweights except at one scale and want AutoCAD to be able to adapt your standards with the click of a button. Forget about it. You should nave thought about this before putting pen to paper, so to speak.

Speaking of hand drawing, do you think drafters had different sets of pencils just for drawing at different scales? Yes, the standards that I am speaking of predate AutoCAD and AutoCAD was designed to fit into them. There's no amount of self promotion that is going to convince me otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Rob, I am sorry but you are continuously just ignoring the problem and pitching us the standards of drawing, thats just not taking us anywhere. Before the computer was invented the standard of drawing was by hand!, no automation, you had to make every little thing by hand, so what is your point?

In early versions of AutoCad, before you had to have 5 different text sizes just to have them printed at the same size in different scales, because text scaling with the annotaiton is a No no, right?! And then comes along "Annotative Scaling", normal evolution of a program to try and solve problems and just become a better program, right?!

Same way, faint lines in a construction drawing is a no no. The only way to avoid that is to make 5 CTB's, each printing the thickness of the lines properly, just like the text example. 

So am I envisioning some kind of Utopia here if Autocad solves that problem by a mere lineweight scale solution, avoiding me having to establish 5 CTB's?! What the hell is going on here? lol

[Anonymous]

sorry if i am tagging wrong people, i dont know very well the reply process here, apparently.

[RobDraw]

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that if you want to follow a different set of standards, you need to set up your drawing environment accordingly. AutoCAD has more than one way to accomplish what you want. Instead of insisting on an easy button, you should be adapting your workflow or changing platforms. Revit can be setup for what you want in a simple chart. You can assign the lineweights to be plotted at different thicknesses according to scale but it doesn't come with an easy button. It still needs to be setup. It's just an easier process than it is in AutoCAD.

[michelle_wecke]

Seriously, you're not contributing anything to the discussion by arguing some dumb preconceived notion that your drawing standard is universal. This easy way out button is wanted by a few people who use a different system to you.

[michelle_wecke]

I have just confirmed with a group I am on with other professional architects and draughtsmen. There is nothing uglier than a clunky 1:200 / 1:500 thick line mashup and nothing less legible than a 1:10 detail where all the lines are seemingly the same thickness (they aren't but at that scale, the line scales are too thin). Everyone on that group is in agreement that a 0.35mm wall at 1:100 should be thinner at 1:200 and thicker at 1:10 for the sake of drawing legibility.

[RobDraw]

As to the standard, I don't care about which one you use or what the people you talk to think is right. Did you search the internet for CAD standards? That's where the cream floats to the top. I'll let you fact check yourself.

I'm saying that you are using a program and a workflow that is designed to for lineweights to work a certain way. You want them to work a different way. Therefore, you need to design a workflow to give you the desired output, not sit on your hands and demand that the leading CAD program got it wrong and needs to give you what you want. For one, this is not the forum for your wishes. This a user help forum. Users helping users. Your thoughts about changes to the program die here. If you were smart enough to try to figure out how to make the program work the way you want it to, we could help you but you won't get an easy way to convert your current workflow to give you what you want. You learned how to draw so that your lineweights are the same regardless of scale. Why can't you learn how to setup your output to suit your needs? One would think that somewhere someone out of all those people that share your views would have a solution for you, too. Try asking intelligent questions and you might find that you can get what you need, just not the way you want it.

[michelle_wecke]

You clearly do care about the standard as you have made it abundantly clear you think my way (and others responding here) is "fundamentally wrong".

I want line weights to work for me, I asked if someone knew the solution. No one has been able to give me a solution including you; in fact you didn't even offer a solution related to a very clear question. The only thing you have done is underhandedly insulted people, got aggressive and told them they were wrong (not just me). That is not useful or needed. If you have an answer - give it without the underhanded insults. You are at least right in one respect - this is a user help forum and you have not been helpful in any way shape or form.

Please quote me where I demanded that anyone give me anything.

[RobDraw]

---

@michelle_wecke wrote:

You clearly do care about the standard as you have made it abundantly clear you think my way (and others responding here) is "fundamentally wrong".

---

Of course I care about standards, it's a requirement of my job. What you aren't understanding is that I can put aside well established best practices in order to address you "issue".

---

@michelle_wecke wrote:

I want line weights to work for me, I asked if someone knew the solution. 

---

No you didn't. You asked how to convert what you have to what you want. I'm saying that you need to design the system to work for what you want. I said it more than once but you missed it.

---

@michelle_wecke wrote:

No one has been able to give me a solution

---

You didn't ask for a solution. You asked for something that is not possible with your current workflow. The solution which you won't accept is that you need to alter your workflow in order to get what you want. There is no easy button to convert what you have to what you want. If you had put the effort into figuring that you that you have put into this thread, you would be up and running towards a real solution already.

---

@michelle_wecke wrote:

The only thing you have done is... told them they were wrong (not just me). That is not useful or needed. You are at least right in one respect - this is a user help forum and you have not been helpful in any way shape or form.

---

Oh, I've been helpful. You just won't accept it as such but some day you will realize that I was actually being helpful.

---

@michelle_wecke wrote:

Please quote me where I demanded that anyone give me anything.

---

Request denied. It has nothing to do with your plotting issue.

Have you tried doing that internet search about drafting standards yet? If you do, you will see what I am referring to and why every CAD system out there is designed to plot in this way. What you ask for does not follow these standards or established best practices. That it why there is no easy button. It's nothing to do with my opinion. What you are saying is that all these programs and people writing these standards all got it wrong. Then you throw out how your experience makes you right. Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? I'm not the one insulting you. The facts are. When you can acknowledge that, then maybe you will realize why there is no easy button and will start redesigning your workflow so that you can get your desire output.

I'll give you some time to let that soak in. 

Good day!

[michelle_wecke]

Oh I see, you do care about standards but you believe yours are the holy grail and the only correct ones. My group are perplexed by your arrogance and stubbornness. You’re proving to be quite the subject matter.

“You asked how to convert what you have to what you want.” Quote where I said that.

“I'm saying that you need to design the system to work for what you want.”
“The solution which you won't accept is that you need to alter your workflow in order to get what you want.”
I didn’t miss this, I think it is absurd that you just simply say it but don’t say how even when I asked you to tell us how to do it step for step (because you said it was easy). I am still waiting on a reply for this.

” If you had put the effort into figuring that you that you have put into this thread, you would be up and running towards a real solution already.”
Unintelligible sentence, please clarify what you are attempting to say.

“Oh, I've been helpful. You just won't accept it as such but some day you will realize that I was actually being helpful.”
Quote where you have been helpful relating to the question.

“Request denied.”
Because you cannot. Accepted.

I have never heard of these standards you are referring to, if they actually do exist, they are archaic sub sets, other sets or branch sets that have evolved or went another direction. I have never come across your particular version where a line, that say represents a brick, is the same thickness at various scales. Not once in 20 years since starting architectural drawings (5 years of university drawing) and 13 years of landscape drawing (3 years of landscape drawing studies). That’s more than a half dozen lecturers and hundreds of colleagues nationally and abroad. I’m not saying your version is wrong, I’m just saying it’s ugly and illegible and that’s probably why I was never taught it.

“Then you throw out how your experience makes you right.”

No, I say my experience has confirmed that I’m not wrong (which is right but not the only right). Yours has equally shown you are not wrong (but you think you are the only one who is right). Want to know why? Because there is no one universal way of drawing as I have stated a half dozen times in different ways. Your way is just ugly and illegible to me. You may think the same of my way … doubt either of us cares what the other thinks. But you are making my group argue why they think you are wrong using art, history and evolution of drawing. Great conversation starter.

I’ll give you some time to answer. Have a good day.

[RobDraw]

Since you obviously have not done a search for architectural drafting standards, that part of the discussion is over. If I feel like it later I'll source that information for you.

Your group means nothing to me. They can't help you get your desired output or you wouldn't be here. There's a reason that they don't have a solution and it isn't that the leading drafting program can't do it. It also makes me wonder about how much they actually know about drafting but I can't make any assumptions about that because they are being filtered through you.

[cadffm]

@michelle_wecke If it helps you: you are right, of course you know it.

But Rob too, in many points, there are a lot of helpful content from Rob that you don't like to see.

If I find the time, I'll write to you.

Whether I'll make it public or as a private message
I haven't decided that yet.

>>" If what you are describing was common practice it would be easier in any decent drafting program."
It is! But AutoCAD is just a simple CAD program and not ' decent drafting program', it is a simple general CAD program for simple objects.

For Lineweight only it is simple to write/buy a plugin, but i never saw a function like this in a simple general CAD program.

I think "all" decent drafting program for architecture are able to work this way.
Autodesk Architecture for example is one decent drafting program, there are walls and windows instead of stupid lines and arcs.
In Architecture you have DISPLAYCONFIGS, with this feature it is possible
to define a window properties for 1:100 differently to 1:50.
DISPLAYCONFIGS are set per viewport.

now I'm taking cover

[michelle_wecke]

"Since you obviously have not done a search for architectural drafting standards"
No, I didn't. I thought that I made that obvious. I'm not interested in researching clunky standards and not even sure what keywords to use to find that specific drafting standard. Either way, do or don't show me your drafting standards, it's not going to change that it's not the only type.

No they couldn't help me, that's why I came here two years ago to see if there was an answer I could use. I don't see why the programmers can't eventually do it, so the question remains until they do do it if that's what they end up doing.

You're wondering how a group of over 200 professionals disagree with you? Yikes. Arrogance and stubbornness are the only explanation.